Baptists, Contemporary and Charasmatic

Karen,

Although I do not necessarily speak for Dr. Bob, he and I do see the issue exactly the same. If Dr. Bob would like to post an answer, I cannot claim to be speaking for him, although I am sure that his answer would be similar to mine. I won't address your question about Tom Piper, but rather a general comment to your statements as to your disagreement with Dr. Bob.

My only comments are about the nature of what charismatics claim to be 'tongues, prophecies, and word of knowledge'. The biblical definition of the use of the revelatory gifts, whether or not you accept that the gifts are valid today or not, were that they were direct revelations that came from God, equal to being inspired as much as the written Word of God. The problem with the charismatic 'gifts' as they are displayed today is that they aren't being practiced correctly according to 1 Corinthians 12-14. Secondly, and most importantly, is that the revelatory gifts have ceased, and therefore God no longer speaks through tongues, divine knowledge, and prophecies. We have the completed written Word of God, which is sufficient for teaching, reproof, doctrine, etc...

No one is saying that the charismatics are 'correcting' the Bible, and, to a large degree I don't believe that many charismatics make such claims (although you are correct to say that some probably do). The problem lies with whether God is directly speaking to the church through the revelatory gifts today. One's source of receiving teaching, reproof, doctrine, etc... is solely through the written Word of God. That is the crux of the Baptist distinctive that teaches that the Bible is the sole authority of our faith and practice. If the revelatory gifts are still being poured out from God today, then the Bible is no longer the sole authority because the revelatory gifts are in fact as equally authoritative as the written Word of God. The problem with the charismatic movement with accepting such gifts today is that they often contradict the rules given by the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 12-14 as to how such gifts are to be used. This contradiction of how the revelatory gifts are used by charismatics contradict the Written Word, therefore the charismatic claims are null and void, violating the principles and regulations set forth in the aforementioned passages. The Holy Spirit is mocked by charismatics and the Word of God is ingnored and even disobeyed; does the Holy Spirit ever contradict the Word of God?
This is why Dr. Bob (and myself) contend for the faith and denounce the charismatic movement for its inherent false doctrines and departure from the truth.

 

I am not Pentecostal or Bapticostal and I never have been. And I do not speak in tongues nor advocate doing so.

 

Dr. Bob should perhaps consider why GARBC worded the first Baptist distinctive as they did.

Hint: If the Bible is our “sole” authority, the Baptist Distinctives have no authority.

 

Two points:

#1 I did not write that the adjective teleion modifies the concept of the 'kingdom of God' but rather the concept of the 'eschaton,' the cognate adjectival meaning of which is found in the word teleion .

#2 There is nothing to be drawn from the context, whether immediate or from chapters 12 and 14, that discuss or even allude to the completed canon of Scripture. The context is completely silent about adding to the meaning "the completed canon of Scripture". Your analysis of 'ginoskomen' in verse nine is also baffling; where do you find 'the completed canon of Scripture ' anywhere in the context? You are isogeting the passage and inserting your fantastic 'contextual meaning' into your interpretation. You have erred by inserting your own man-made interpretation.

 

I am posting here for your consideration a bibliography of some of the recently published books on the Baptist Distinctives. (Please forgive me for not posting the titles in italic type as of course they should be).

• Anderson, Fred, ed. Baptist Distinctives: A Sourcebook of Basic Baptist Beliefs as Defined by Virginia Baptists of the Past. Virginia Baptist Historical Society, 1995.
• Basden, Paul A. ed., Has Our Theology Changed? Nashville: Broadman, 1994.
• Baugh, John F. The Battle for Baptist Integrity. Austin: Battle for Baptist Integrity, Inc., 1996.
• Brackney, Wiliam Henry. The Baptists. New York: Greenwood Press, 1988.
• Brown, Lavonn D. Truths That Make a Difference: The Doctrines Baptists Believe. Nashville: Convention Press, 1980.
• Cothen, Grady Coulter and Dunn, James M. Soul Freedom: Baptist Battle Cry. Macon: Smyth & Helwys, 2000.
• Deweese, Charles W., Editor. Defining Baptist Convictions: Guidelines for the Twenty-First Century. Franklin, TN: Providence House Publishers, 1996.
• Edgemon, Roy T. The Doctrines Baptists Believe. Nashville: Convention Press, 1988.
• Estep, William R. Why Baptists? A Study of Baptist Faith and Heritage. Baptist Distinctives Committee of the Baptist General Convention of Texas, 1997.
• Ferguson, Robert U. Amidst Babel, Speak the Truth: Reflections on the Southern Baptist Convention Struggle. Macon: Smyth & Helwys, 1993.
• George, Timothy and David S. Dockery. Baptist Theologians. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1990.
• Goodwin, Everett C., Ed. Baptists in the Balance: The Tension Between Freedom and Responsibility. Valley Forge: Judson Press, 1997.
• Goodwin, Everett C. Down By the Riverside. Valley Forge: Judson Press, 2001.
• Gourley, Bruce T. The Godmakers: A Legacy of the Southern Baptist Convention? Franklin, TN: Providence House Publishers, 1996.
• Greer, E. Eugene Jr., ed. Baptists: History, Distinctives, Relationships. Dallas: Baptist General Convention of Texas, 1996.
• Hudson, Winthrop. Baptist Convictions. Valley Forge: Judson Press, 1962.
• Hudson, Winthrop Still and Norman Hill Maring. A Baptist Manual of Polity and Practice, Revised. Valley Forge: Judson Press, 1991.
• Humphreys, Fisher. Polarities in the Southern Baptist Convention: A Special Issue of The Theological Educator. New Orleans: New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, Number 37, Spring 1988.
• Humphreys, Fisher. The Way We Were. New York: McCracken Press, 1994.
• Jenkins, Timothy D. Southern Baptists at the Crossroads. Canyon, TX.: Crucible Press, 1989.
• Kelly Earl. Southern Baptist Distinctives. Nashville: Convention Press, 1989.
• Kent, Dan Gentry and Bert B. Dominy, eds. What Baptists Have Believed. Southwestern Journal of Theology Vol. 31, No. 2 Spring, 1989.
• Leonard, Bill J., ed. Dictionary of Baptists in America. Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 1994.
• Lumpkin, William L. Baptist Confessions of Faith. Valley Forge: Judson Press, 1959.
• Mauldin, Frank Louis. The Classic Baptist Heritage of Personal Truth: The Truth as it is in Jesus. Providence House Publishers, 1999.
• Mosley, Ernest E. Basics for New Baptists. Nashville: Convention Press, 1989.
• Mullins, E. Y. Baptist Beliefs. Valley Forge: Judson Press, 1925, Reprint 1987.
• Neely, Alan ed., Being Baptist Means Freedom. Charlotte, N.C.: Southern Baptist Alliance, 1988.
• Parker, Gary E. Principles Worth Protecting. Macon: Smyth & Helwys, 1993.
• Penfield, Kate ed. Into a New Day: Exploring a Baptist Journey of Division, Diversity, and Dialogue. Macon: Peake Road Publishers, 1997.
• Pool, Jeff B. Against Returning to Egypt: Exposing and Resisting Creedalism in the Southern Baptist Convention. Macon: Mercer University Press, 1998.
• Pool, Jeff B., Ed. Sacred Mandates of Conscience: Interpretations of the Baptist Faith and Message. Macon: Smyth & Helwys Publishing, 1997.
• Shurden, Walter B. The Baptist Identity: Four Fragile Freedoms. Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 1993.
• Shurden, Walter B., ed. The Struggle for the Soul of the SBC: Moderate Responses to the Fundamentalist Movement. Macon: Mercer University Press, 1993.
• Skoglund, John E. The Baptists. Valley Forge: Judson Press, 1967.
• Stacy, R. Wayne, ed. A Baptist's Theology. Macon: Smyth & Helwys, ____
• Staton, Cecil P., ed. Why I Am a Baptist: Reflections on Being Baptist in the 21st Century. Macon: Smyth & Helwys, 1999.
• Tuck, William Powell. Our Baptist Heritage. Macon: Smyth & Helwys, 1993.
• Walker, Brent. James Dunn: Champion for Religious Liberty. Macon: Smyth & Helwys, 2000.
• Williams, Roger. The Bloody Tenant of Persecution for Cause of Conscience. Edited by Richard Groves. Macon: Mercer University Press, 2001.
• Yarbrough, Slayden A. Southern Baptists: A Historical, Ecclesiological, and Theological Heritage of a Confessional People. Brentwood: Southern Baptist Historical Society, 2000.
• Yarbrough, Slayden. Southern Baptists: Who are We? 3rd ed. Oklahoma City: Messenger Press, 1990.

 

"Good men debating..."

Only one problem: there are no "good men".

Selah,

Bro. James

 

This is probably a fault of mine for using their definition in my arguments; I had used the GARBC definition of the first Baptist distinctive of the Bible being the sole authority. I am also not a GARBC Baptist, and would not adopt the wording of the GARBC statement for the first Baptist distinctive.

 

Huh? This is what you wrote in your argument from page four:

Teleion is a neuter pronominal adjective singular in number in the nominative case modifying a noun that is understood but not provided in the text and must be determined from the context. It is something that is contrasted elsewhere in the passage and that can only be the present tense found in verse 8. “For we know in part, Ek merous gar ginoskomen.

Ginoskomen is a present indicative verb in the active voice connoting present ongoing action which is contrasted with the end of this present age, the Eschaton.

Thus when this present age ends and "the kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ,” that which is partial will be done away.

Your 'exegetical' analysis is rather a running commentary inserting the context of 'the kingdom of God'. How could you be so mistaken? Again, you stated yourself that the meaning is to be taken from the context because 'teleion' doesn't have any direct pronominal/adjectival predicate anywhere in the passage that it modifies. You failed to see my argument that in verse 9 that the imperfect (ek merous) is contrasted with the perfect (to teleion) in verse 10. The context here is very clear; the imperfect is referring to the temporary revelatory gifts (tongues, prophecy, and divine knowledge) which would be supplanted by 'that which is perfect'. If the passage has its context regarding the modes of revelation, then how does it NOT make sense that 'that which is perfect' also be referring to an object of revelation? It is here where you have made the biggest mistake in your analysis of my argument. How you failed to take this into consideration begs your attention.

Other than plagiarizing the exact wording of my statements from page four, your attempt at handling the Greek text is woeful at best. So much for your twenty years of Pauline studies! Again, if my arguments stand, as they seem to do, on the correct interpretation of I Corinthians 13:8-10, then why do you continue to obfuscate, dodge, deflect, and ignore my arguments. You have failed to advance your own arguments based on your a priori isogetical bias. To deny this is saying that you deny the very Word of God!

 

I agree that the context is important so let’s look at it in context (in English for the benefit of those who cannot read Greek),

8. Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away.
9. For we know in part and we prophesy in part;
10. but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away.
11. When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things.
12. For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known. (NASB, 1995)

First of all, please notice that the NASB correctly translates the Greek word teleion (perfect, v. 10) as an adjective as it is in the Greek text. Secondly, please notice that when that which is teleion comes, “I will know fully just as I also have been fully known.” As I posted above, Pauline literature has been my primary field of study for more than 20 years and I certainly do not know it fully ‘just as I have been fully known by God.’ And of course none of us came to know fully as the consequence of the establishment of the N.T. canon—we shall come to know fully just as we have been fully known ONLY when this age has come to its telos.

The Greek word teleion is NOT a diminutive neuter pronoun. And for a discussion of its meaning, please see the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 8, pp. 49-87, especially pp.67-84.

 

Dear friend,

I stated no such thing. There is no such thing as a "direct pronominal/adjectival predicate."

Your argument is incorrect. ek merous is NOT contrasted with to teleion. ek is a preposition in the genitive case; merous is a neuter noun in the genitive case, and two words together form a prepositional phrase describing what we ginoskomen , and therefore it is contrasted with epignosomai kathos kai epegnosthen.

Yes, the context here is referring to these gifts of the spirit, but the text does NOT say that they will be supplanted by 'that which is perfect'. The text says that they will be supplanted by our having full knowledge ( epignosomai) at the telos, the consummation of this age.

This passage says that our partial knowledge shall be replaced by full knowledge. At that time we shall have no need for the gifts being mentioned in this passage. Love, however, shall endure.

The full knowledge spoken of in this passage is not a noun and cannot be a reference to the full canon of Scripture; it is a verb expressing the ability to have full knowledge. The Greek text does not allow for your interpretation.
</font>[/QUOTE]

 

• C. K. Barrett, The First Epistle to the Corintians, Harper & Row, 1968
• Thomas Charles Edwards, A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, Hamilton, Adams, & Co., 1885
• Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corintians, William B. Eerdmans, 1987
• Frederic Louis Godet, Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, T. & T. Clark, 1889
• David E. Garland, 1 Corinthians, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, Baker, 2003
• F. W. Grosheide, The First Epistle to the Corintians, William B. Eerdmans, 1953
• Jean Hering, The First Epistle of Saint Paul to the Corintians, Epworth Press, 1962
• Charles Hodge, Exposition of I Corinthians, Nisbet, 1857
• Christian Friedrich Kling, The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, 1868
• R.C.H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul’s First and Second Epistles to the Corinthians, Augsburg Publishing House, 1937
• Gregory J. Lockwood, 1 Corinthians Concordia Commentary, Concordia, 2000
• James Moffatt, The First Epistle of Paul to the Corintians, Hodder and Stoughton, 1938
• Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer, Critical and Exegetical Hand-Book to the Epistles of the Corinthians, T & T Clark, 1883
• Herman Olshausen, A Commentary of Paul’s First and Second Epistles to the Corinthians, T. & T. Clark, 1855
• Archibald Robertson, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary of the The First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corintians, T. & T. Clark, 1911
• Arthur Penrhyn Stanley, The Epistles of St. Paul to the Corinthians, John Murray, 1858
• Anthony Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, Eerdmans, 2000

 

Since I have asked LRL71 to quote word for word some scholars of the Greek text of 1 Corinthians to support his interpretation (something that he has yet to do), I believe that in all fairness to him I should quote word for word some scholars of the Greek text of 1 Corinthians to support my interpretation.

Archibald Robertson, D.D., LL.D. (Late Principal of King’s College, London; Formerly Principal of Bishop Hatfield’s Hall, Durham; Honorary Fellow of Trinity College, Oxford), and Alfred Plummer, M.A., D.D. (Late Master of the University College, Durham; Formerly Fellow and Tutor of Trinity College, Oxford) wrote on 1 Cor. 13:12 in their A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the First Epistle of St Paul to the Corinthians:

Most certainly the completed canon did not give us knowledge equal to that of God. Such a knowledge shall not be possible until this present age has come to its termination, and the new day dawns.

1 Cor. 13:12. For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known. (NASB, 1995)

--------------------

F. W. Grosheide, who occupied the Chair of New Testament at the Free University of Amsterdam for over forty years, wrote on 1 Cor. 13:9, 10 in his The First Epistle to the Corinthians:

---------------------

Gordon D. Fee, Professor of New Testament at Regent College, Vancouver, and author of New Testament Exegesis: A Handbook for Student, wrote on 1 Cor. 9, 10 in his his The First Epistle to the Corinthians:

 

Soulman, not only does he believe in tongues (in the Pentecostal form); he also believes in the three major distinctives of Pentecostalism:

1) Speaking in tongues
2) Lack of eternal security
3) Baptism of the Holy Spirit at some time AFTER salvation (as often indicated by the speaking in tongues.)

But, then he believes something that I wonder if Pentecostals believe. "EVOLUTION" after he made a statement that creationism has caused more damage to ministry than many other things (or something to this effect.)

I tend to agree, he can call himself a Baptist, but so can my Maltese Terrier.

 

Phillip,

Perhaps you and soulman should read my posts more carefully. And, by the way, what does any of this have to do with the correct exegesis of 1 Cor. 13:8 - 12? If you are not able to show any errors in my exegesis or the exegesis of the other non-charismatic scholars that I posted above, perhaps you could benefit more by studying the Bible than inaccurately criticizing my interpretation of it.

 

Craig,

Sorry for the delay in getting back here. Anyway, to briefly answer one of your earlier questions about a scholar who supports the interpretation of 1 Corinthians 13:8-10 as being a proof text of cessation, I will direct your attention to an article written by Robert L. Dean (see his biography at http://www.prestoncitybible.org/pastor.htm). Due to the thesis paper being 16 pages long, which is in .pdf format, I cannot repost it here on the BaptistBoard. You can read his paper on the subject at:

<a href="http://www.prestoncitybible.org/CD/Tongues" target="_blank">www.prestoncitybible.org/CD/Tongues Will Cease.pdf
</a>

If you don't have Adobe Acrobat, you can view the HTML site (courtesy of Yahoo.com) at:

Dean Miller

Secondly, you are incorrect in pointing out that I have not cited any sources for the correct interpretation of 1 Corinthians 13:8-10. Again, I have cited Spiros Zodhiates for one. Benjamin Warfield is another (whom I did not mention before), and had spearheaded the 'cessationist' view earlier in the 20th century. If you are so eager to view such works, you can look them up for yourself. Considering that you 'boast' having in your possession a great deal of library works, this should not be a problem for you.

[ January 05, 2005, 12:23 AM: Message edited by: DHK ]

 

Your apology is accepted.

I wrote on page three of this thread,

Perhaps I should have made myself more clear in this statement, therefore:

I have NEVER encountered even one commentator writing in a published “commentary on the Greek text of 1 Corinthians,” in the usual sense of that phrase, Baptist or otherwise, who agrees with your severely incorrect interpretation of 1 Cor. 13:8-10.

The article that you posted a link to comes far short of being a published commentary on the Greek text of 1 Corinthians. I have posted a list of several of them that are widely available for sale, and also widely available for reading in seminary libraries, that very clearly show that your interpretation is 100% refuted by the Greek text, and I could post a much more extensive list of such commentaries that are not so readily available.

Now concerning the article that you posted: I was very disappointed to see that the author of that article, Dr. Robert Dean, Jr., very dishonestly represented the vast amount of scholarly literature that refutes his point of view. To be specific, Dean writes,

Neither Fee nor any of the scholars who refute Dean’s interpretation are charismatics, and Dean knows that, and for him to refer to their theology as being “charismatic theology” is deliberately dishonest. Furthermore, for him to write that the theology of the vast majority of Christian scholars who oppose his incorrect interpretation of 1 Cor. 13:8 - 12 reveals ongoing “evidence of a shallow view of revelation and a truncated view of apostolic authority” could not be less unfounded or more inappropriate.

Secondly, Dean fails to successfully refute the exegesis of 1 Cor. 13:8-12 by world-class scholars that PROVES that his exegesis is incorrect. Indeed, Gordon D. Fee, a New Testament scholar known around the world for his ecumenical attitude and respect for the views of others, writes that the view that the completed canon of Scripture is in view in 1 Cor. 13:10 is “impossible.” (Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, William B. Eerdmans, 1987, p. 644).

Thirdly, I myself have posted an exegesis of the critical parts of 1 Cor. 13:8-12 which prove conclusively that Dean’s interpretation is severely flawed and totally incorrect.

Fourthly, Dean’s credentials, as he himself gives them in his article, distort and exaggerate his qualification to write such an article.

Fifthly, only those who are desperate to find in the Holy Scriptures proof that the charismata are no longer operating in the Church today would even begin to imagine that 1 Cor. 13 teaches such a thing. But perhaps worst of all, these people have taken the very chapter in the Bible that more than any other brings to our attention the importance of love and they use that chapter as a weapon against other Christians to prove that a substantial part of their faith and practice is at best nonsense, and perhaps even demonic.

Sixthly, we have the testimonies of thousands of Christians that they themselves have personally witnessed the operation of the charismata, including speaking in tongues, in the church. Just because you and I have not personally witnessed it ourselves is no reason to believe that other have not.

Seventhly, those who most adamantly oppose the charismatic movement have been the least effective in bringing the Gospel to third world countries; whereas the charismatic bodies have been the most effective in bringing the Gospel to third world countries.

 

Dear friend, I did not point out that you have not cited any sources for your interpretation of 1 Corinthians 13:8 – 12, I pointed out that you have not provided any direct quotes, and that you have not done, except now a very poor article by Robert Dean, Jr. And I do not believe that it is fair to the discussion to ignore the context of the verses from which you are taking your interpretation, for as you yourself have omitted, the context is very important; and vv. 11 & 12, although they prove that your interpretation is incorrect and you may wish they were not there, they are there and they are an essential part of the context.

8. Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away.
9. For we know in part and we prophesy in part;
10. but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away.
11. When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things.
12. For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known.
13. But now faith, hope, love, abide these three; but the greatest of these is love.
(NASB, 1995)

 

Dear CraigByTheSea,

Thanks for the commentary citations and explanations concerning non-cessationism. Now, I am convinced that the teaching of "cessationism" is one big sham perpetuated by "rationalist" Christians who want to rob Christianity of miracles.

Thanks. A lot of thanks.

Robert